Year 2017, Volume 0, Issue 3, Pages 85 - 104 2017-09-30

Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar
A Secondary Tool for Demarcation Problem: Logical Fallacies

Tevfik Uyar [1]

93 194

Thagard’a göre sözdebilimlerin epistemolojik boyutunun yanı sıra sosyal boyutu da bulunmaktadır ve bilim ve sözdebilim ayrım probleminde bir alanın uygulayıcılarının davranışları da bir araç olarak kullanılabilir. Bu makalede sözdebilimcilerin mantıksal safsata kullanmaya olan eğilimleri ve safsataya başvurma sıklıklarının bilim-sözdebilim ayrımında kullanılabilecek ikincil bir araç olduğu savunulmaktadır. Örnek olarak astroloji sözdebilimi seçilmiş ve astrologların alanlarını tanıtırken ya da savunurken sıklıkla başvurdukları dokuz mantıksal safsataya yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca bu safsataları tanımanın bilimsel ve sözdebilimsel argümanları ayırt edebilmede yardımcı olacağı ileri sürülmüştür.

According to Thagard, the behavior of practitioners of a field may also be used for demarcation between science and pseudoscience due to its social dimension in addition to the epistemic one. I defended the tendency of pseudoscientists to commit fallacies, and the number of fallacies they commit can be a secondary tool for demarcation problem and this tool is consistent with Thagardian approach. In this paper, I selected the astrology as the case and I revealed nine types of logical fallacies frequently committed by astrologers while introducing their field and/or defending their claims against the scientific inquiries and refutation efforts. I also argued that recognizing these fallacies may help the audience to demarcate between the scientific and the pseudoscientific arguments.

  • Adorno, Theodor W. (2002). The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture. Edited by Stephen Crook. Routledge Classics. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203426234.
  • Allum, N. (2011). “What Makes Some People Think Astrology Is Scientific?” Science Communication 33 (3): 341–66. doi:10.1177/1075547010389819.
  • Bayrakçı, Asuman. (2017). “Kavramlarla Kur’an’ı Kerime Bakış.” Accessed August 20. http://www.allahvesistemi.org/ahmedhulusidekavramlar/kavramlar/astroloji/.
  • Bennett, Bo. (2015). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition). Sudbury: Ebooklt.com.
  • Beyerstein, Barry L. (1995). “Distinguishing Science From Pseudoscience.” Simon Fraser University. http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_science_vs_pseudoscience.pdf.
  • Boudry, Maarten, Stefaan Blancke, and Massimo Pigliucci. (2014). “What Makes Weird Beliefs Thrive? The Epidemiology of Pseudoscience.” Philosophical Psychology 5089 (October): 1–22. doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.971946.
  • Bunge, Mario. (2006). “The Philosophy behind Pseudoscience.” Skeptical Inquirer 30 (4): 27–29.
  • Bunge, Mario. (2011). “Knowledge: Genuine and Bogus.” Science & Education 20 (5–6): 411–38. doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9225-3.
  • Carlson, Shawn. (1985). “A Double-Blind Test of Astrology.” Nature 318 (14): 162–63. doi:10.1038/314731a0.
  • Ceyhan, Oğuzhan. (2009. “Astroloji’yi Nasıl Bilirsiniz?” NTV. December 27. http://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/astrolojiyi-nasil-bilirsiniz,skHYyILRaEuRaW-oNZv9w.
  • Chokoisky, Simon. (2015). Sex, Love, and Dharma : Ancient Wisdom for Modern Relationships. Simon and Schuster. Currey, Robert. (2017). “Empirical Astrology: Why It Is No Onger Acceptable to Say Astrology Is Rubbish on a Scientific Basis.” Accessed August 17. http://www.astrologer.com/tests/basisofastrology.htm.
  • Das, Tapan. (2009). Why Astrology Is Science: Five Good Reasons - Tapan Das, PhD - Google Kitaplar. Bloomington: iUniverse.
  • Dean, Geoffrey. (2015). “Love Signs - Fail World’s Largest Tests (N=27m).”Accessed November 7. http://www.astrology-and-science.com/S-love2.htm.
  • Dean, Geoffrey. (2003). “Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?” http://astrology-and-science.com/D-psia2.htm.
  • Dean, Geoffrey, and Ivan W Kelly. (2003). “Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (6): 175–98. http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf.
  • Derksen, A. A. (1993). “The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24: 17–42. doi:10.1007/BF00769513.
  • Dölen, Devrim. (2014). “Üniversitede Astroloji.” February 13. http://www.astroturkiye.com/universitede-astroloji/.
  • Dölen, Devrim. (2015). “Tevfik Uyar’ın Bilimle İmtihanı.” Astroloji Türkiye. http://www.astroturkiye.com/tevfik-uyarin-bilimle-imtihani/.
  • Döşer, Öner. (2014). “Yeniay, Dolunay, SÜPERAY ve Etkileri.” http://www.onerdoser.com/makaleler/yeniay-dolunay-superay-ve-etkileri-154.
  • Ergin, Hatice Kübra. (2006). İslam’da Astroloji. İstanbul: İkidünya.
  • Gardner, Martin. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover Publications.
  • Gover, Robert. (2005). Time and Money : The Economy and the Planets. Hopewell Publications.
  • Holton, Gerald. (1992). “How to Think about the ‘Anti-Science’ Phenomenon.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 12. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/012.
  • Horowitz, Maryanne Cline. (2005). “Pseudoscience.” New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Kılıç, Arzu. (2013). “Burçlara Inanmalı Mı?” Zaman. http://www.zaman.com.tr/cumaertesi_burclara-inanmali-mi_2168054.html.
  • Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, edited by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, and Charles Morris, Second. Vol. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Labossiere, Michael C. (2010). “42 Fallacies.” https://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf.
  • Lakatos, Imre. (1977). “Science and Pseudoscience.” In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lindeman, Marjaana. (1998). “Motivation, Cognition and Pseudoscience.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 39 (4): 257–65. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00085.
  • Lugg, Andrew. (1987). “Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem.” Dialectica 41 (3): 221–30.
  • Mann, A. T. (2004). The Future of Astrology. New Yorl: Cosimo, Inc.
  • Mayberry, Mark. (1990). “Truth Magazine.” Guardian of Truth. http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034263.html#N_6_.
  • Mayo, Deborah G. (1996). “Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-Eye View of Popper’s Demarcation of Science.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 271–90. doi:10.1093/bjps/47.2.271.
  • McGrew, John H, and Richard M McFall. (1990). “A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology.” Journal of Scientific Exploration 4 (1): 75–83.
  • Menemencioğlu, Kemal. (2017). “Ezoterik Astroloji - Bölüm 1.” Accessed August 18. http://www.hermetics.org/ezo-astro1.html.
  • Merton, Robert K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Edited by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nieminen, Petteri, and Anne-Mari Mustonen. (2014). “Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings against Evolutionary Theory.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 7 (1): 11. doi:10.1186/s12052-014-0011-6.
  • Özcimbit, Ayhan, and Gülşen Özcimbit. (2011). İslamda Astroloji. Onikinci Kitap. Pavić, Željko. (2013). “Science and Pseudoscience in Postmodern Societies.” Informatologia 46 (2): 145–53.
  • Pigliucci, Massimo, and Maarten Boudry. (2013). “Prove It! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes.” Philosophia 42 (2): 487–502. doi:10.1007/s11406-013-9500-z.
  • Popper, Karl Reimund. (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Edited by Norman I. Platnick. Routledge Classics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. doi:10.2307/2412688.
  • Pratkanis, Anthony R. (1995). “How to Sell a Pseudoscience.” The Skeptical Inquirer 19 (4): 19–25.
  • “Pseudoscience.” (2015). Oxford Dictionary. Accessed January 11. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pseudoscience.
  • Riotte, Louise. (1989). Astrological Gardening: The Ancient Wisdom of Successful Planting and Harvesting by the Stars. Garden Way Pub.
  • Sagan, Carl. (2009). Kozmos. Istanbul: Altın Kitaplar Yayınevi.
  • Schoijet, Mauricio. (2009). “On Pseudoscience.” Critique 37 (3): 425–39.
  • Shermer, Michael. (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseusoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
  • Silverman, Bernie I. (1971). “Studies of Astrology.” The Journal of Psychology 77 (2): 141–49.
  • Starck, Marcia. (1989). Earth Mother Astrology : Ancient Healing Wisdom. Llewellyn Publications.
  • Thagard, Paul R. (1978). “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978: 223–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192639.
  • Thagard, Paul R. (1988). Computational Philosophy of Science. Bradford: The MIT Press.
  • Thorndike, Lynn. (1955). “The True Place of Astrology in the History of Science.” Isis 46 (3): 273–78.
  • Usher, Shaun. (2013). Letters of Note : Correspondence Deserving of a Wider Audience. Allen & Unwin. Uyar, Tevfik. (2015). Astrolojinin Bilimle Imtihanı: Yıldızlar Size Ne Söylemiyor? İstanbul: Kırmızı Kedi.
  • Uyar, Tevfik. (2016). “Astrology Pseudoscience and a Discussion about Its Threats to Society.” Journal of Higher Education and Science 6 (1): 50–60. doi:10.5961/jhes.2016.142.
  • Walton, Douglas N. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
  • Zaimler, Binnur. (2012). “Astrolojiye İnanmak İçin On Neden.” Hürriyet, December 2.
Subjects
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Author: Tevfik Uyar

Bibtex @research article { kilikya359611, journal = {Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2148-9327}, address = {Mersin University}, year = {2017}, volume = {0}, pages = {85 - 104}, doi = {}, title = {Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar}, key = {cite}, author = {Uyar, Tevfik} }
APA Uyar, T . (2017). Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, 0 (3), 85-104. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/kilikya/issue/31938/359611
MLA Uyar, T . "Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar". Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 0 (2017): 85-104 <http://dergipark.org.tr/kilikya/issue/31938/359611>
Chicago Uyar, T . "Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar". Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 0 (2017): 85-104
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar AU - Tevfik Uyar Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - DO - T2 - Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 85 EP - 104 VL - 0 IS - 3 SN - -2148-9327 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Cilicia Journal of Philosophy Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar %A Tevfik Uyar %T Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar %D 2017 %J Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi %P -2148-9327 %V 0 %N 3 %R %U
ISNAD Uyar, Tevfik . "Ayrım Problemi İçin İkincil Bir Araç: Safsatalar". Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 0 / 3 (September 2017): 85-104.